Why no 'home' SDSL?

Why no 'home' SDSL?
Its all 'business' SDSL.

Fsck that! Some bright POTS management idiot seems
to be in charge of deciding whether the public knows
whether they need SDSL or not.

More like they are too busy milking businesses with
SDSL rate hike and protecting themselves of the free market
and choice.

That this could happen in 2005 means nothing of course
to regulators stuck in AD 1805 business practices.

Just because SDSL is aimed and advertised towards businesses most companies
would be happy to supply it to your house. However the cost of SDSL means
it's too expensive for average Joe to afford.

Traditional POTS voice cannot be used on an SDSL line. The majority of
people would be unwilling to pay two line rentals a month.

Most home users do not require a high upload speed. The average person
downloads much more than they upload.

And recently the trend seems to be towards very high download speeds.
(8Mb,24Mb) I think SDSL offers a maximum download speed of 4Mb using a
single line. Out of the two products I know what one sounds more appealing
to the average person.

And finally SDSL is much more distance dependant then ADSL.

Dan

Daniel wrote:

> Just because SDSL is aimed and advertised towards businesses most
> companies would be happy to supply it to your house.

Funny that.
They they still want 2000+ pounds minimum for it because
its 'business' SDSL and not 'home' SDSL.


> However the cost of
> SDSL means it's too expensive for average Joe to afford.

Funny that.
ADSL2 providers giving greater upload bandwidth at 40 pounds
per month than most SDSL providers can provide at 4000 pounds
per annum.

> Traditional POTS voice cannot be used on an SDSL line. The majority of
> people would be unwilling to pay two line rentals a month.

Funny that.
What has owning an SDSL line got to do with owning a voice line?
Deregulate SDSL and you will see providers with bundled VoIP over SDSL
in next to no time.


> Most home users do not require a high upload speed. The average person
> downloads much more than they upload.

Funny that.
Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a rage
and 9600 came out.

> And recently the trend seems to be towards very high download speeds.
> (8Mb,24Mb) I think SDSL offers a maximum download speed of 4Mb using a
> single line. Out of the two products I know what one sounds more appealing
> to the average person.

Funny that.
Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when ISDN was a rage.

> And finally SDSL is much more distance dependant then ADSL.

Funny that.
Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when 9600 baud modems
were a rage.

> Dan

"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:smMmf.6448$(E-Mail Removed) k...
> Daniel wrote:
>
>> Just because SDSL is aimed and advertised towards businesses most
>> companies would be happy to supply it to your house.
>
> Funny that.
> They they still want 2000+ pounds minimum for it because
> its 'business' SDSL and not 'home' SDSL.

You want it, you pay for it. No-ones stopping you.

>
>> However the cost of
>> SDSL means it's too expensive for average Joe to afford.
>
> Funny that.
> ADSL2 providers giving greater upload bandwidth at 40 pounds
> per month than most SDSL providers can provide at 4000 pounds
> per annum.

You want it, you pay for it. No-ones stopping you.

>> Traditional POTS voice cannot be used on an SDSL line. The majority of
>> people would be unwilling to pay two line rentals a month.
>
> Funny that.
> What has owning an SDSL line got to do with owning a voice line?
> Deregulate SDSL and you will see providers with bundled VoIP over SDSL
> in next to no time.

Which they currently dont, so you want a voice line you have to have a
seperate one.

>> Most home users do not require a high upload speed. The average person
>> downloads much more than they upload.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a rage
> and 9600 came out.

Hmm, so it's still true then!

>> And recently the trend seems to be towards very high download speeds.
>> (8Mb,24Mb) I think SDSL offers a maximum download speed of 4Mb using a
>> single line. Out of the two products I know what one sounds more
>> appealing
>> to the average person.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when ISDN was a rage.

Hmm, so it's still true then!

>> And finally SDSL is much more distance dependant then ADSL.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when 9600 baud modems
> were a rage.

Which... it was and still is.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:42:32 UTC, 7
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a rage
> and 9600 came out.

You show your ignorance. There have never been 9600 baud modems.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

7 wrote:

> Funny that.
> They they still want 2000+ pounds minimum for it because
> its 'business' SDSL and not 'home' SDSL.
>

that's because its 10:1 or less contention. If you look at ADSL with
the same contention ratio (Nildram, Demon) you find its the same price
or even more than SDSL (despite SDSL having a line included in the
price).

SDSL also has SLAs and other stuff that are either premium priced or
don't exist for ADSL.

The price reflects the service you're buying. If you need the service
pay the price, if you can't afford it use something cheaper and
crappier. Simple really.

Phil

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 Bob Eager wrote:
>> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a rage
>> and 9600 came out.
>
>You show your ignorance. There have never been 9600 baud modems.

Of course there have. I was running a bulletin board on a 9600 baud
modem back in 1989.

Unless you're criticising the use of "baud" in this context. All right,
"9600 bps"! ;-)

David

--
David Rance (E-Mail Removed) http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
7 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Daniel wrote:
>
>> Just because SDSL is aimed and advertised towards businesses most
>> companies would be happy to supply it to your house.
>
> Funny that.
> They they still want 2000+ pounds minimum for it because
> its 'business' SDSL and not 'home' SDSL.
>
>
>> However the cost of
>> SDSL means it's too expensive for average Joe to afford.
>
> Funny that.
> ADSL2 providers giving greater upload bandwidth at 40 pounds
> per month than most SDSL providers can provide at 4000 pounds
> per annum.
>
>> Traditional POTS voice cannot be used on an SDSL line. The majority
>> of people would be unwilling to pay two line rentals a month.
>
> Funny that.
> What has owning an SDSL line got to do with owning a voice line?
> Deregulate SDSL and you will see providers with bundled VoIP over SDSL
> in next to no time.
>
>
>> Most home users do not require a high upload speed. The average
>> person downloads much more than they upload.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a
> rage and 9600 came out.
>
>> And recently the trend seems to be towards very high download speeds.
>> (8Mb,24Mb) I think SDSL offers a maximum download speed of 4Mb using
>> a single line. Out of the two products I know what one sounds more
>> appealing to the average person.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when ISDN was a
> rage.
>
>> And finally SDSL is much more distance dependant then ADSL.
>
> Funny that.
> Thats what clueless POTS management said about ADSL when 9600 baud
> modems were a rage.
>
>> Dan

Since you're obviously such an expert on what the market wants, why not put
your money where your mouth is and offer your own SDSL service? You might
make a killing! Or not?
--
Cheers,
Tim
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:33:28 UTC, David Rance
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 Bob Eager wrote:
> >> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a rage
> >> and 9600 came out.
> >
> >You show your ignorance. There have never been 9600 baud modems.
>
> Unless you're criticising the use of "baud" in this context. All right,
> "9600 bps"! ;-)

Exactly.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Bob Eager wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:33:28 UTC, David Rance
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 Bob Eager wrote:
>> >> Thats what clueless POTS management said when 2400 baud modems were a
>> >> rage and 9600 came out.
>> >
>> >You show your ignorance. There have never been 9600 baud modems.
>>
>> Unless you're criticising the use of "baud" in this context. All right,
>> "9600 bps"! ;-)
>
> Exactly.

Idiot!